memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Comparison of The Federation and Communism
This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete " ". *If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale". *If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion". *If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page. Deletion rationale Does not meet MA's standards. It's nothing but a page which allows fans to draw conclusions between Communism and the Federation, which is not what we're here for. This is an encyclopedia, not a political blog. --From Andoria with Love Discussion Although this does seem to be a "bias" page it is very usefull as it helps explain the inner workings of the Federation. This might seem like a very subjective idea but it helps to explain certain anomalies and vague ideas of the federation and many other sources such as wikipedia has many articles very similar to this. I know this is a controversial issue but just hear me out. --CartoonDiablo 23:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC) :We hear you loud and clear. :) Unfortunately, Memory Alpha is not a site for pages containing what certain fans believe are similarities between two or more subjects. It is very subjective, and we have deleted several articles like this in the past. Wikipedia is also trying to weed out such pages, IIRC. An encyclopedia just isn't the place for this type of material. But we will be discussing it, assuming others come in to comment. --From Andoria with Love ::Delete. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC) :::In Soviet Russia, page deletes YOU!! --Alan 00:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC) ::::Delete this stupidity, and quickly.– Cleanse talk 00:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC) ::::: I support Delete, I think this is inappropriate for something like MA, that deals with the Canon of Star Trek, not refections of political powers of star trek with real world political ideals. JCDenton 00:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC) ::::::Considering that the first souce cited for this "article" is the infamous StarDestroyer.Net (home of the "Talifan", some of the most rabid Trek bashers on the Internet) DELETE immediately and perma ban the user. Those jerks get a foothold here and they'll ruin this wikki. Just be ready for a massive response, they don't take being caught very well...Capt Christopher Donovan 01:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC) :::::I just noticed the person who made this page, had put it in his user page, dunno if that means anything, just an FYI JCDenton 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC) :::::::Delete, this sort of thing isn't why MA exists. --Malimar 02:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC) ::::::::Strong Delete. While the quality of the writing is adequate, this article does not fit in with MA's mission or standards. Some of it is factually wrong(The Federation does not use Latinum, and there are numerous examples of private shipping and transport in Trek) some of it is pure speculation(the lack of private corporations mentioned equals no private corporations) and it all seems to be used to talk politics, not enrich MA. There is a place for such a thing, and this is not it. --31dot 02:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC) ::There are absolutely no grounds here for a perma-ban, or ban of ANY kind. This user posted something in good faith, not vandalism, and is being cooperative. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC) ::::::::I agree that a ban is inappropriate for this situation. --31dot 02:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC) :::::::::Delete this definitely does not go in with Star Trek and clearly is speculative in many, many areas.--Terran Officer 05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC) :RE: Captain Chris Donovan: Whoa, a perma-ban? Just because the user cited a web group you don't like as a source? We don't even know if he's a member of that group and even that wouldn't be enough to ban the user. The article appears to be written with good intentions, it's just that the user didn't these types of pages weren't allowed. In any case, we don't ban any user for being a part of a particular group or for citing that group. If a user vandalizes, insults someone, or uses an inappropriate username, then we'll ban him. But that is hardly the case here. --From Andoria with Love 07:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::Delete. --Jörg 08:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::The information is interesting though. Should be preserved somewhere.--Stefano Cecconi ::::::::::::Delete has nothing to do with MA. (FYI it is saved on the user's page)--UESPA 23:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC). ::::::Ask Darkstar (whatever his name is here, I know he's a contributer) about SD.Net's users and their habits. You let them anywhere near this board, and they'll have it in chaos within hours. I'm just trying to head off unneccessary problems.Capt Christopher Donovan 01:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC) ::It's been hours already. **looks around** No chaos in sight. Preemptive banning is far more likely to ban innocent editors than it is to stop SD.net. If they want to "reign chaos", they'll just make more accounts. There are a number of ways around our safeguards against that. It won't stop them if they are determined, but it will hurt innocent users. In the end, there isn't anything SD.net can do that admins, users granted revert ability, and general editors can't stop faster than the vandals can act. It is easier to fix than to vandalize. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC) ::::::I understand what you're saying OC...just so long as we're ready if and when the storm hits.Capt Christopher Donovan 02:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Admin resolution *'Deleted'. --From Andoria with Love 01:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)